NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation's leading advocate of personal privacy and a woman's right to choose, said recent documents released by the National Archives from John Roberts' work as a top legal adviser under President Reagan reveal Roberts' hostility toward a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Today's Washington Post reports on a memo regarding the landmark 1965 Supreme Court ruling that legalized the use of birth control by married couples under a right to privacy. According to the records, Roberts' memo "to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then-Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, devotes a section to the so-called 'right to privacy,' arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade."

"That John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the highest court in the nation, should refer disparagingly to our 'so-called right to privacy' is extremely troubling. The right to privacy is central to our American ideals of liberty and personal freedom, and it's something most Americans cherish," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "The more we learn about John Roberts' judicial philosophy, the clearer it becomes that he is not the right choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. With each new piece of information the White House's artfully constructed faÃ§ade falls farther away, and the real John Roberts comes into clearer view â€“ a career activist who would bring a clear ideological agenda to the Supreme Court. We need justices who will protect fundamental freedoms, not challenge them."

This doesn't sound like a man who respects precedent. Looking back to his Reagan Administration days, when Roberts apparently felt more free to speak his mind, The Boston Globe reports:

[Roberts] wrote vigorous defenses, for example, of the administration's version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, which would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He challenged the arguments of the US Commission on Civil Rights in favor of busing and affirmative action. He described a Supreme Court decision broadening the rights of individuals to sue states for civil rights violations as causing ''damage" to administration policies, and he urged that legislation be drafted to reverse it. And he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.

There is a lot about this Supreme Court nominee's ideological zealotry in his career to be concerned about.

Inspired by The Heretik, who noted privatly "the burn in Blogylvania" is bringing on oy-ish feelings, I begin a personal meme: The Thursday Burn - Oy!. This idea may need some refinement, so if anyone takes this on, feel free to sample it, hack it, sweeten it, make it yours. But for now it's just a flat out expression of what's burning you this week in the blogozoid, with the "oy!" factor.

What really burns me this week is how all the shit is coming down about Roe, and nobody seems to notice. Sure, there's a lot of sensible concern on Booman, but not in the mainstream media, and not from many of the SCLB.

Many of the Democratsâ€™ â€œpowerful special interest allies,â€? notably in the abortion-rights movement, are raising alarms about Roe v. Wade. The core of the abortion ruling is not in immediate danger; even if Oâ€™Connorâ€™s support becomes Robertsâ€™s opposition, Roe will still command a majority of one. The truth, though, is that the next few years will be hard ones for reproductive freedom, especially among the red-state poor and young. Roe or no Roe, Roberts or no Roberts, a woman with money will be able to get a safe and legal abortion, even if she has to travel to another state to get one. But any Bush-appointed Justice, whatever his or her stand on Roe, is likely to endorse ever more restrictive state laws calculated to intimidate, inconvenience, or otherwise prevent young women who want or need abortions from getting them. If, after another couple of Bush appointments, the Court does strike down Roe, the result would, of course, be worseâ€”abortion would be banned outright in a score of statesâ€”but the political energy in this seemingly endless national struggle would quickly pass from the pro-life to the pro-choice side. The more immediate dangers, from the moderate-to-liberal point of view, are in areas where Oâ€™Connor provided the fifth vote. If Roberts turns out to be as conservative as Bushâ€™s rightmost supporters hope, then affirmative action, secularism, patientsâ€™ rights, and all manner of federal regulation from campaign-finance controls to environmental protection will be in serious trouble.

For seven years, the National Organization for Women has had a court-ordered injunction that protected patients and staff of women's clinics from anti-choice protestor violence--because I suppose violence, assault, hurling hateful slurs, bombings, shootings, stalking, threats, and vandalism are all apart of the misogynist "pro-life" dogma. This injunction was known as NOW v. Scheidler, and recently the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. And what is at stake is the safety and even the very lives of those who enter, exit, and work at women's clinics all across the country.

This seems to be getting pretty "immediate" to me. Oy vey, Hendrik! What are you thinking?!

...Anti-women, anti-women's-reproductive-rights (yeah I may seem a little late at this but still). What did you expect out of judge nominated by Bush? Women's reproductive rights truly are endanger. Don't believe me? Take a look at his record...because history repeats itself. (via NARAL Pro-Choice America)

--As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that Ã‚Â“[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruledÃ‚Â…. [T]he CourtÃ‚Â’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortionÃ‚Â… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.Ã‚Â”

--In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.

--Roberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, filed a Ã‚Â“friend of the court brief for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the protesters behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.

--The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Robertss oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice Asked, Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled? He responded,No, your honor, the issue doesnt even come up. To this the justice said, Well, that hasnt prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.

At least Bushie's not trying to override the precedented (constitutional) standard for appointing Supreme Court justices.
But now, our last line of defense for Roe v. Wade before it's inevitably overturned (Roberts has actually argued that Roe was "wrongly decided and should be overruled") is the Senate.
The Republican-majority Senate.
The overly-influenced-by-the-White-House Senate.
The Senate where most Democrats are too fucking spineless to actually stand up for leftist values (i.e. pro-choice).

Thus, my conclusion that Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts as Justice O'Connor's replacement will be a disaster.
Especially since he's already been confirmed by this Senate once, in 2003, when Bush nominated him to his current position in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
And rumor has it that both sides "highly respect" him as wicked intelligent.
And there are people like MSNBC who are putting the odds in his favour.
So much for Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose....

However, please do what you can, and go to NARAL Pro-Choice America's website and do whatever you can to help save Roe. There's a letter you can sign that they'll send to your Senators, there's an action kit, and lots of other things to do to help.